Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Unfair labour practices – Mauritius'

Suspension as a form of an unfair labour practice can be of two categories. There could be a situation where an employer suspends an employee as a disciplinary sanction after an employee has committed an act of misconduct. This is often referred to as a punitive suspension. An employer may also suspend an employee pending a disciplinary hearing. In this case the employee has not yet been found guilty because the investigation into the alleged misconduct is still on going. The employee may be suspended as a way of preventing him from interfering with the investigation process into the alleged misconduct. This form of suspension is often referred to as a preventative suspension. It is very important to note the distinction between the two forms of suspension because the processes that are followed when effecting them are different. Failure to acknowledge the difference might result in a situation where an employer might be effecting a preventative suspension but the consequences might be that of a punitive suspension and end-up being an unfair labour practice. Suspension is a disciplinary measure, and it is important to note that in the event that the employer elects to implement a suspension, its conduct must be disciplinary in nature and intent and should be corrective rather than punitive.Unlike dismissals where the Code of Good Practice of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995 provides guidance on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness, there are no guidelines on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness when it comes to suspensions. This has resulted in a situation where suspension is treated as a minor aspect of disciplinary measures that is frequently abused as it is often on full remuneration. This, however, does not allow an employer to suspend employees at will, without merit and without following proper procedure. Suspension could have severe adverse effects on employees and often affects their reputation, goodwill, human dignity, self-esteem and the right to meaningful association and work. It is for this reason that suspension must be effected in a way that is procedurally and substantively fair.Punitive suspension is implemented as a sanction and is often without pay and is a last resort prior to dismissal. Preventative suspension occurs prior to a disciplinary hearing, with the aim of temporarily removing the employee from the workplace to enable the employer to conduct a proper investigation without interference. Unfortunately preventative suspensions are often abused by employers in that they protract over extended periods of time, making the preventative suspension punitive in nature, to the extent that the courts have been forced to intervene and lay down stringent requirements that must be met in order to prevent such abuse.There are various requirements for suspension which range from the intention of the employer, the audi alteram partem rule, sufficient reasons prior to suspension to period of suspension. Most employment relationships are governed by disciplinary codes or collective agreements, which often place limitations on the concept of suspension. Some codes provide for special leave at the option of the employee, which the employer often abuses instead of utilizing the preventative suspension option. This, however, is more often than not to suit a political agenda.In the event of non-compliance by an employer, an employee is not left remediless. An unfair suspension constitutes an unfair labour practice and an employee has the right to refer such dispute to the relevant labour forums like the CCMA or the relevant bargaining council. Employees are cautioned not to refer their disputes to the Labour Court for final relief, but rather to only approach the courts for urgent interim relief, like interdicts.

This article deals with the South African law relating to promotions. As promotion disputes mostly arise as alleged unfair labour practices, a short discussion on how the concept of an unfair labour practice developed in South Africa is undertaken. In this regard the common law is studied in order to see whether it makes provision for protection of employees subjected to unfair labour practices relating to promotions. Through this study one soon realises that the common law is in fact inadequate to deal with unfair labour practices relating to promotions, and thus an enquiry into various legislative provisions are undertaken. The impact of the all-important Wiehahn Commission of Enquiry, established in 1979, is also briefly discussed. In this article an attempt is made to define the term ‘promotion’. In this regard reference is made to some cases adjudicated upon by the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (the “CCMA”). The cases referred to seem to favour the view that when one is defining the term ‘promotion’, regard must be had to the employment relationship between the employer and the employee, as well as the nature of the employee’s current work in relation to the work applied for, in order to establish whether in fact a promotion has taken place. It is necessary to consider what unfair conduct is defined as in the context of promotions. It seems that managerial prerogative is at the center of the enquiry into unfair conduct of the employer. Further to the analysis of unfair conduct, various principles that govern both procedural and substantive unfairness are considered. These principles are dealt with separately with reference to case law. Lastly the dispute resolution mechanisms are considered and a brief discussion on remedies is undertaken. The remedies are discussed with reference to case law, as well as the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 as amended by the Labour Relations Amendment Act 12 of 2002. The broad headings of this article are accordingly unfair labour practices, definition of promotions, unfair conduct of the employer, onus of proof and remedies. It is concluded with the proposition that once an employer has set policies and procedures in place in dealing with promotions, then such an employer should stick to those policies and procedures within the context of the law, as well as within the percepts of the vague and nebulous term of ‘fairness’. Should the employer fail to do so, the majority of cases indicate that such an employer will be guilty of an unfair labour practice relating to promotion.

The meaning of the term “benefits” in the context of unfair labour practice jurisprudence, having previously been unsettled for more than a decade, has now been settled by the Labour Appeal Court in the Apollo.1 Prior to Apollo,2 our courts have struggled to adopt a stance to maintain the distinction between disputes of rights and disputes of interest as separate compartments. The prevalent view at that stage was that, in order for an employee to lodge a dispute at the CCMA or Bargaining Council the employee would have to show that he or she had a right to the benefit that arises by virtue of contract, statute or collective agreement, failing which the CCMA or a Bargaining Council would not have the jurisdiction to determine the dispute, in which case it may constitute a dispute of interest and the employee will have to embark on an industrial action to secure a benefit. Apollo3 endorsed a previous decision of the Labour Court,4 i.e. by placing “benefits” into the following two categories: (1) Where the dispute is about a demand by employees concerning their benefits, it can be settled by way of industrial action. (2) Where the dispute concerns the fairness of the employer's conduct, it must be settled by way of adjudication or arbitration. As a result of the above categorisation, the CCMA or Bargaining Council may adjudicate a dispute relating to benefits where there is a pre-existing benefit and the employer refuses to comply with its obligation towards the employer in that regard. It may also adjudicate disputes relating to the provision of a car allowance (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the allowance) and disputes relating to the provision of bonuses (i.e. where the employer retains the discretion to grant or withhold the bonus). In this treatise, I set out the history and development of the legislation in relation to the concept of “benefits” (in the context of unfair labour practice) so as to understand how our Labour Appeal Court has now come to settle the issues above.

At the outset of this treatise the development of the unfair labour practice is traced. The point is made that common law knows nothing about fairness and it is pointed out that the concept was introduced as a statutory concept in 1979. In 1995 the development of unfair labour practices since 1979 was relied upon to provide a list of unfair labour practices. The main thrust of the treatise concerns an evaluation of an unfair labour practice relating to benefits – listed presently in section 186(2) of the Labour Relations Act. Reference is made to Industrial Court cases and case law since 1996 is considered and commented upon. In particular, the issue of remuneration not being a benefit, and the fact that interest disputes are not justiciable as unfair labour practices for instance are canvassed.

This topic deals with unfair labour practice relating to promotion and will focus mainly on the public education sector. The Labour Relations Act of 1956 and 1995, with respect to the concept of unfair labour practice, will be analysed. It is through this discussion that one appreciates how the concept of unfair labour practices has evolved in South African law. An attempt is made to define promotion and in this regard reference is made to cases decided upon by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the Labour Court (LC). Furthermore, promotion is defined within the context of public education and applicable legislation. Due regard must be to the employment relationship between the employer and the employee as well as compare the current employee’s job with the job applied to. Unfair conduct by the employer will be discussed within the context of promotion. The prerogative of the employer will be discussed with reference to case law and that discussion will include an analysis of various principles with regard to procedural and substantive fairness. Various remedies provided for in dispute resolution mechanism in line with the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 and relevant case laws will also be discussed. The last chapter deals with how to strike a balance between employee rights (that is educators) and the rights of learners, in the context of promotion disputes. In this regard reference to case laws will be made. In general the topic will deal with unfair labour practice, definition of promotion including promotion of educators, unfair conduct of the employer, onus of proof, remedies and striking the balance between the rights of the learners and educators.

This treatise considers the promotion process in the workplace and focuses on the meaning of promotion and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 19951 (Hereinafter referred to as the LRA) relating to promotion. It also considers unfair labour practices from an employee’s perspective. Chapter 2 of this treatise discusses the processes employers should follow when dealing with promotions. Neither the LRA nor the Constitution provides employees with a right to be promoted. However, the Constitution2 provides that all workers have the right to fair labour practices. The concept of unfair labour practices was introduced in South Africa in 1979 following the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. For a long time in South Africa the concept of unfair labour practice was defined in broad terms and included unprotected strikes and lockouts. It was left to the Industrial Court to determine conduct which constituted an unfair labour practice. The promulgation of LRA (which took effect in 1996) provided a clear definition of what constitute unfair labour practice in the workplace. The LRA provided a closed list of practices which constitute an unfair labour practice which provided as follows: “(a) unfair conduct by the employer relating to the promotion, demotion, probation (excluding disputes about dismissals for a reason relating to probation) or training of an employee or relating to the provision of benefits to an employee; (b) unfair suspension of an employee or any other unfair disciplinary action short of dismissal in respect of an employee; (c) a failure or refusal by an employer to reinstate or re-employ a former employee in terms of any agreement; and (d) an occupational detriment, other than dismissal, in contravention of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 (Act No. 26 of 2000), on account of the employee having made a protected disclosure defined in that Act.”The LRA brought about significant changes including the exemption of trade unions from committing unfair labour practice to the employers as it was the position under the old Act. There are conflicting views amongst employers and employees as well as labour law experts regarding the determination of the remedies available to applicants when unfairness has been proven in promotion disputes. It is has been observed that many awards has been successfully reviewed by employers, particularly awards that involves protective promotion. Chapter one will be an introduction regarding unfair labour practice, the originality of the concept and the changes and developments the concept has gone through. Chapter two will investigate the meaning of promotion in the workplace. This chapter will focus on the definition of promotion. Elements that constitute promotion will also be addressed. Chapter three considers the provisions of the LRA relating to unfair labour practice: promotion. However, the focus will be narrowed down from the definition of unfair labour practice to the issue of promotion as it is central to the study. Chapter four will examine the manner in which the applicants are differentiated. Furthermore, this chapter will also address the issue of whether the internal applicant should be given preference on the basis that he or she has been working in the organisation but not in the advertised post. Chapter five discusses the importance of substantive and procedural fairness in promotion processes. Chapter six examine the appropriate remedies for aggrieved applicants during the promotion process. A disappointed candidate has a statutory right to approach the relevant bargaining council to seek recourse with regard to the matter. The dispute must be referred to the CCMA within 90 days by the aggrieved applicant.

This research paper explores the means at the disposal of employers and employees to address the phenomenon of unfair labour practice relating to promotion in the workplace. Furthermore the paper endeavours to illustrate that there are aspects of South African law that provide a framework within which unfair labour practices can be addressed in the workplace. As I explore these fundamental issues of the law, the fairness relating to recruitment and selection practices will be examined. Some recommendations are also made as to how departments and organisations must address promotion issues at the workplace. There are often perceptions of alleged unfairness committed by employers in the workplace. These perceptions emanate from a number of allegations. The allegations include but are not limited to past practices, policy considerations, acting in higher positions, prior promises, being better qualified, receiving higher marks in the interviews, irregular conduct by the interviewing panel, unfair decisions by appointing authority or their failure to apply their minds, affirmative action or equity considerations. The study seeks to explore some of these allegations and further provide certainty as to what the legal recourse is under those circumstances. The research further seeks to provide the legal certainty pertaining to issues of promotion in the workplace. The study commences on a general approach to the principles of law relating to unfair labour practice in the public sector. Further developments of the law relating to promotion as it applies to the education sector are explored. The study culminates with possible remedies available to instances where an unfair conduct has been found to be committed by the employer during the promotion process. There is sufficient case law which covers the promotion processes. The study also exposes forms of relief which can be awarded to applicants who had lodged disputes in which it is found that indeed the employer had committed unfair labour practice relating to promotion. The study further aims to explore both procedural and substantive fairness with regard to appointment and promotion processes. Issues which are dealt with concerning fairness in promotion disputes include polygraph tests, whether there are hard and fast rules to the process, whether employees have the general right to promotion, what the requirements for fair appointment or promotion are, the law on substantive fairness, affirmative action and promotion, the consequences of failure to appoint the most suitable candidate, dealing with candidates who obtained higher scores in the interviews, promoting a candidate who had not met minimum requirements and promoting candidates based on flawed scores. The research also deals with frivolous referrals of disputes and costs which can be awarded against such applicants. Further issues which are dealt with in this research include the concept of “joinder” which is critical where there is an incumbent in the post which is disputed and the relief sought is that such post must be set aside. Further clarity is given on who is supposed to be joined in a dispute which is referred in the education sector. The CCMA rules on joinder are also clarified. The consequences of failure to join the incumbent are also dealt with. The research is also clarifying the concept of prematurity or ripeness in promotion disputes and its consequent lack of jurisdiction if such is referred.

The history of constructive dismissals in South Africa imitated from the English law in 1986, when an employee successfully challenged the employer on this particular concept after an incident relating a forced resignation. From the literature it is clear that constructive dismissal, as we know it today, originated from our English counterparts. Being a relatively new concept, the South African labour laws caught on at a rapid pace. The leading case on which the South African authors leaned towards was the English case of Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough). In South Africa constructive dismissals were given statutory force in unfair dismissal law and is defined as the coerced or forced termination of a contract of employment resultant in from the conduct of the employer. There are many forms in which constructive dismissals would postulate that could justify an employee to lay claim to constructive dismissal. Examples thereof are the amendment of the contract of employment, rude language and sexual harassment. It is eminent that certain elements should be present before an employee would have reasonable prospects of succeeding with such a claim. Constructive dismissal comes into the equation when an employer behaves in such a manner that eventually and ultimately leads to the employee, being the receiving party, in the employment relationship, to terminate the employment contract. This termination must be the direct result of the conduct of the employer that irreparably frustrated the relationship and made it impossible for the employee to remain in the service of the employer in question. It appears that the courts have taken a firm stance on coerced or forced resignation, in its various forms tantamount to breach of contact, that any sufficiently unreasonable conduct by an employer may justify that the employee to terminate services and lay claim to the fact that he had been constructively dismissed. It needs to be mentioned that the fact that the mere fact that the employer acted in an unreasonable manner would not suffice and it is up to the employee to prove how the conduct of the employer justified the employee to leave and claim that the employer’s conduct resulted in a material or fundamental beach of the employment contract. In dealing with the contingency of the concept of constructive dismissals it has been expressly provided for in numerous systems of labour law. As is seen herein, a constructive dismissal consists in the termination of the employment contract by reason of the employee’s rather than the employer’s own immediate act. The act of the employee is precipitated by earlier conduct on the part of the employer, which conduct may or may not be justified. Various authors and academics endeavoured to defined constructive dismissal and all had the same or at least some of the elements present, to justify constructive dismissal. The most glaring element being the termination of employment as a result of the any conduct that is tantamount to a breach going to the root of the relationship by the employer, that frustrated the relationship between the employer and the employee and rendered it irreparable. The employee resigns or repudiates the employment contract as a result of the employer normally not leaving the employee any other option but to resign. This can also be termed as coerced or forced resignations and are commonly better known as “constructive dismissal”. The employee is deemed to have been dismissed, even though it is the employee who terminated the employment contract. The most important element to mention is the employee terminated the employment contract, ie resigned yet this is regarded as a dismissal, it is however for the employee to first lay a claim at the proper authority and the employee must prove his / her allegation before it can be a constructive dismissal. As will become clear, that the onus of proof is on the employee to show that the termination of employment resulted from the conduct of the employer. Equally true as in all cases of constructive dismissal, including cases of sexual harassment, being a ground for constructive dismissal, the employee must prove that to remain in service would have been unbearable and intolerable. Sexual harassment is one of the most difficult forms of constructive dismissals, in many cases there are no witnesses and the employee either “suffers in silence or opt to place her dignity at stake to prove her case. It seems as though the test is to determine if the employer’s conduct evinced a deliberate and oppressive intention to have the employment terminated and left the employee with only one option that of resignation to protect her interests. Employees have a right to seek statutory relief and needs to be protected. If a coerced or forced resignation had taken place irrespective whether the employee resigned or not. It is against this back drop that constructive dismissals was given legality and are now recognized as one of the four forms of dismissals in terms of the Act.

The core of the research focuses on the Temporary Employment Services (TES) Industry and its ability to provide labour flexibility for a number of client firms. The underlying notion that work is changing and becoming more flexible creates an exploratory realm for the concept of non-standard employment. The thesis draws on the conceptual model of the „flexible firm‟ and argues that the rise in non-standard forms of employment, particularly temporary employment within the TES industry, is primarily a result of the demand for labour flexibility. The TES industry that offers „labour on demand‟ is found to be an extremely secretive industry that is diverse in both its structure and services. The thesis reveals that the clients within the triangular employment relationship (TER) are reaping the most benefits especially with regard to escaping their obligations as the employer. The thesis explores human resource practices, unfair labour practices and the extensive loopholes exploited by the TES industry because of poor regulation. Consequently, the industry creates an „underclass‟ that is unprotected, insecure and easily exploitable. Qualitative research techniques were used in the form of semi-structured interviews. The thesis provides insights into the demand and supply of temporary workers in Port Elizabeth and addresses the problems associated with a TER and the TES industry as a whole.

Common law does recognise the concept of dismissal based on operational requirements. It recognises dismissals that are based on breach of expressed or implied terms of contract of employment. The concept of operational requirements has its roots in the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956. This Act recognised termination of employment of a number of employees due to ability, capacity, productivity, conduct and operational requirements and needs of undertaking industry trade or occupation of the employer as legitimate. Under the 1956 LRA, employers were allowed to dismiss employees if employees refused to accept the proposed change to conditions of employment. The dismissal is called lock-out dismissal. This kind of dismissal entitled employers to dismiss employees on condition that the dismissal was temporary and the workers would be re-employed when they agree to the demands of the employer. After the contract of employment was terminated between the employer and employees, the employer was allowed to implement the changes using scab labour. The 1995 Labour Relations Act introduced section 187(1)(c) that was intended to re-enforce the abolishing of the lock-out dismissal. This section strictly forbids the dismissal of employees in order to compel them to accept demands of the employer in matters of mutual interest. Such dismissals are regarded as automatically unfair. In terms of section 64(4) of the 1995 LRA employers are not permitted to unilaterally effect changes to employees’ terms and conditions of employment. They are required to seek and obtain consent of the affected employees. If employees refuse to accept the proposed changes, the employer can use lock-out as defence. Firstly, the employer can initiate lock-out until employees accede to its demand. Secondly, the employer can lock-out employees in response to the notice of strike or strike of the employees. The employer can use scab labour during this lock-out period. Unlike the lock-out dismissal, lock-out under the 1995 LRA does not include termination of contract of employment. iv In contrast, employers are allowed to dismiss employees who refuse to agree to change to their terms and conditions of employment on the ground of operational requirements provided a fair procedure is followed. This reason for dismissal is not viewed by the courts as a dismissal to induce employees to accept the demand of the employer. The question that this study seeks to examine is the relationship between automatic unfair dismissal in terms of section 187(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act and dismissal for operational requirements. A dispute between the employer and employees regarding change to terms and conditions of employment is a mutual interest dispute; and it therefore falls under collective bargaining. The same dispute can easily fall to rights dispute, because the reason for the proposed change to the production system and demand to the pursuit of improved efficiency and better achievement of profit objective related to operational requirement. There is obvious overlap between operational requirements and wage work bargaining. In Schoeman v Samsung Electronics, the court held that the employer is entitled to run its business in a prosperous way and this may entail affecting changes to terms and conditions of employment when the market forces demand so. In Mwasa v Independent Newspapers, the court held that change to terms and conditions of service of an employee can be proposed as a way to avoid retrenchment; dismissal of employees for refusing to accept the change is not covered by section 187(1)(c). In Fry’s Metals v Numsa, the court has rejected the notion that there is tension between section 187(1)(c) and section 188(1)(a)(ii). The court held that section 186(1) refers to dismissal or termination of workforce with the intention to end the employment contract and replacing the workforce with employees that are prepared to accept terms and conditions of employment that suit the employer’s operational requirements. The court argued further that the meaning of dismissal should be a v starting point when one wants to dispute the two sections. On the other hand, section 187(1)(c) was effected with a certain purpose, which is to prohibit the employer from dismissing employees in order to compel them to accept its demand in dispute of mutual interest. The court held that the dismissal in this case was final. The employer dismissed its employees because it did not need them anymore. This dismissal is in accordance with section 186(1). The court rejected that operational requirements is confirmed to saving business from bankruptcy. The court argued that the principle includes measures calculated to increase efficiency and profitability. The employer can dismiss and make more profit.

Thesis (MPhil (Political Science))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The impact of globalisation can be found in every aspect of human life. Globalisation has also brought about changes in the world of work, such as the call for labour market flexibility, which has restructured the workplace. This study focuses on the implications of labour market flexibility for workers in South Africa and for trade unions, within the context of the introduction of a macroeconomic neoliberal policy in South Africa in 1996. The study examines the changing nature of employment and work in a company in the South African retail sector, namely Pick n Pay. Labour market flexibility comes about as companies try to compete and cut costs at the expense of workers. This implies a reduction of protection and benefits and has resulted in the creation of a ‘working poor’ labour segment. Trade unions have been ineffective in providing a voice and representation for the new working poor. This study argues that under conditions of economic globalisation, trade unions are disempowered and flexible labour market practices are introduced to cut costs in order to maintain market share and increase competitiveness. Economic globalisation has pressurised the South African government, and the African National Congress (ANC), to shift gradually to the right and to adopt a neoliberal macroeconomic policy. This has led to an increase in inequality, unemployment, new forms of insecure jobs and the creation of an informal economy. This study found that instead of creating jobs and alleviating poverty, the government’s Growth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy (GEAR) has resulted in retrenchments, downsizing and restructuring. The unemployed, retrenched and working poor find themselves in the ‘second economy’. The retail sector in particular makes use of labour market flexibility in order to compete for market share. Pick n Pay is an example of a retail company that increasingly makes use of flexible labour market practices. This study found that labour market flexibility has created a situation that trade unions find difficult to deal with, and that labour market flexibility has been accompanied by increasing inequality, which overlaps with race and gender identities. Furthermore, Pick n Pay maintains flexible employment under conditions of increased productivity and contrary to labour legislation.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Impak van globalisering kan in elke aspek van mense se lewens waargeneem word. Globalisering het verandering in die wêreld van werk teweeggebring, soos die aandrang op arbeidsmarkbuigsaamheid wat tot die herstrukturering van die werkersmag gelei het. Hierdie studie fokus op die implikasie van arbeidsmarkbuigsaamheid vir werkers in Suid‐ Afrika, en die implikasie vir vakbonde in die konteks van die inwerkingstelling van ’n makroekonomiese neo‐liberale beleid in Suid‐Afrika in 1996. Verder ondersoek die studie die verandering in die aard van indiensneming en werk in ’n Suid‐Afrikaanse maatskappy in die kleinhandelsektor, naamlik Pick n Pay. Buigsaamheid in die arbeidsmag ontstaan wanneer besighede in ’n poging om kompeterend te wees, uitgawes ten koste van werkers besnoei. Dit bring die vermindering van beskerming en voordele mee, wat tot ’n arbeidsegment van ‘arm werkers’ lei. Vakbonde kon nie ’n stem en verteenwoordiging aan hierdie nuwe segment van arm werkers gee nie. Hierdie studie voer aan dat ekonomiese globalisering werkersunies magteloos laat terwyl buigsame arbeidsmarkpraktyke aangewend word om kostes te sny ten einde markaandeel en verhoogde kompetisie te verseker. Ekonomiese globalisasie plaas meer druk op die Suid‐Afrikaanse regering, die African National Congress (ANC), om ‘n verskuiwing na regs te maak en ’n neo‐liberale makroekonomiese beleid te volg. Dit het gelei tot verhoging in ongelykheid, werkloosheid, nuwe vorme van onsekere werksgeleenthede, en die skepping van ’n informele ekonomie. Die studie bevind dat die regering se Groei, Indiensnemings‐ en Herdistribusiebeleid (GEAR), wat veronderstel was om werk te skep en werkloosheid te verminder, eerder tot meer afdankings, afskaling en herstrukturering gelei het. Die werklose, afgedankte en armwerkerskorps bevind hulself nou in ’n ‘tweede ekonomie’. In die besonder maak die kleinhandelsektor gebruik van arbeidsmarkbuigsaamheid om vir ’n deel van die mark te kompeteer. Pick n Pay is ’n voorbeeld van ’n kleinhandelmaatskappy wat toenemend gebruik maak van arbeidsmarkbuigsaamheid. Die studie kom tot die slotsom dat arbeidsmarkbuigsaamheid ’n situasie geskep het wat vakbonde verlam het, en wat met ’n verhoging in ongelykheid wat verder met ras en geslagsidentiteite oorvleuel, gepaardgaan. daarby maak Pick n Pay gebruik van buigsaame indiensnemingspraktyke onder omstandighede van verhoogde produktiwiteit, in weerwil van arbeidswetgewing

In Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Ltd ((2007) 12 BLLR 1097 (CC); (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC); 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)) the Constitutional Court made two findings of immense significance for dismissed employees: firstly, the court rejected the use of the so-called “reasonable employer” test in our law, a test which traditionally required arbitrators and courts evaluating the fairness of a dismissal for proven misconduct to treat the employer’s decision on sanction with a measure of deference; and secondly, on scrutiny of the more controversial issue before the court, to wit, the basis, if any, upon which arbitrators are obliged to make reasonable decisions, the court (in confirming that arbitrators are so obliged) held that the obligation to do so suffuses section 145 of the LRA, and that the extended review grounds legislated under PAJA do not apply. In the present article these judicial conclusions are critically analysed and evaluated, and a number of submissions are made, inter alia: it is submitted that the Constitutional Court’s rejection of the “reasonable employer” test was premised on a fundamental misinterpretation of the test; that while the court’s attempt to locate the reasonableness standard within the LRA was perhaps justifiable, the court failed to consider properly, or at all, the wording of section 145 and its history, with the consequence that the court failed to appreciate that section 145 of the LRA (save on an unduly strained interpretation) could not conceivably be construed to cater, in itself and without more, for the constitutional right to lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair administrative action; and further, that the labour landscape post-Sidumo is, to an extent, unquestionably one bathed in greater uncertainty. In conclusion, the author poses the question whether, on a review of Sidumo, the Constitutional Court should not be considered to have fallen short of fulfilling its constitutional obligations under the rule of law.

The main premise of this treatise is to discuss the Mauritian Law of Procedural Fairness within the context of Dismissal for Misconduct: A comparative study with the South African Doctrine of unfair Labour Practice. It analyses in detail the types of misconduct that eventually leads to the dismissal of an employee. The dismissal has not only to be substantively fair but also procedurally fair. To support the views expressed in the research, reference has been made to labour law cases decided mainly in Mauritius and South Africa. There are, however, references to other jurisdictions such as India, England, Australia, Namibia. The major constraint that the researcher encountered was the unavailability of decided cases referred from the Industrial Court of Mauritius. Most of the cases referred to in the Mauritian context are the Supreme Court decisions on dismissals due to misconduct. Thus for lack of relevant cases in Mauritius, there is a heavy reliance on cases decided in South Africa and other jurisdictions. These references have constructively enhanced the legal dimension of the topic under discussion.
Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Durban-Westville, Durban, 2001.

Thesis M.Com. (Human Resources Management))--University of the Witwatersrand, School of Economic and Business Sciences,
South Africa has a long history of the movement of people from one region to another with the intention of resettling to live and work. This is a phenomenon that is expected to continuously reconfigure and define everyday realities for a significant number of people in the country. Although labour migration has had a significant contribution to the development of the South African economy, there are increasing concerns about the experiences of unfair labour practices and exploitation in the South African labour market, which poses a challenge for the South African labour legislation and labour migrant workers’ ability to successfully move, live and work in South Africa. This paper investigated the experiences of migrant workers in the city of Cape Town and Johannesburg against the background of alleged prevailing cases of unfair labour practices across different industries in the South African labour market. Using a qualitative methodology, 20 domestic and international migrant workers (10 from Cape Town and 10 from Johannesburg) were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire developed by the researcher. The study found abundant experiences of unfair labour practices and exploitation of migrant workers in the South African labour market. Furthermore, the study found that the perception of unfair labour practices and exploitation extended to other migrant workers across the South African labour market. Consequently, domestic and international migrant workers expressed a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of South African labour legislation to protect their labour rights. However, these workers are prepared to live with the unfair labour practices and exploitation they experience, as they have no better economic alternative available to them than the ones they currently choose. Recommendations were made to the Department of Labour, employers of labour and migrant workers based on the findings of this study.

This dissertation serves to investigate the existence of unfair labour practices (ULPs) in one institution of higher learning called X University, for reasons of confidentiality. The problem of this research is that there is existence of unfair labour practice in the X University. The above problem gave rise to different sub-problems and the research hypothesis. Literature review of this study surveyed different theories of labour relations. The theories reviewed include issues such as fair and unfair discrimination, the Labour Relations Act, discipline, Occupational Health and Safety and the role of the Labour Unions. Research methodology of this dissertation is quantitative. Qualitative methods used was not dominant. There was a use of percentages and frequencies for computing data. Data collection was in the form of questionnaires administered to 100 subjects. Preferred way of dealing with the subjects was through purposive sampling. The sample of this research is 100. It is through data that research subjects indicated that there is prevalence of ULPs in the X University. Sensitivity is exercised here, not to attribute the research findings to other organisations. The campus chosen has its own realities. This dissertation based its recommendations on the findings. The study mainly recommended that ULPs could be minimised by adopting policy relating to labour practices of the university.
M.Admin. (Industrial Relations) North-West University, Mafikeng Campus, 2005

This paper focuses on the issue of constructive dismissal in terms of s186(e) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 which defines dismissal to include circumstances where an employee resigns because the employer has made continued employment intolerable. The purpose of this paper is to explore and describe case law on this issue and to consider what type of conduct has been regarded as intolerable by the courts in order to determine whether or not a case for constructive has been met.
Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.

Work plays a dominant role in modern society. It is through work that the economic well being of any society is sustained. Workers who perform various tasks contribute to the well being of society as well as to their betterment as individuals. Thus paid employment has assumed a prominent role in modern society. It is an incentive on individuals to contribute to socio-economic welfare, while their needs and aspirations as individuals are also satisfied. But for an orderly society to exist, there has to be a subjection of some members of society by others, a division between those who have the social mandate (express or tacit) to exercise power for and on behalf of others. Thus work relations comprise those who exercise managerial power(employers) and those subject to managerial power (employees). In broader political relations, the task of social management is performed by the state. However those exercising managerial functions do not have unfettered discretion. Power should be exercised within acceptable social limits and be used to achieve realistic social goals. Thus it has been felt that the laws should always ensure that the incumbents of governmental power do not exceed the scope of their power or abuse it. Hence the process of judicial review. This gives the courts the power to review the decisions of administrative authorities in order to protect individual citizens who might be adversely affected by bad administrative decisions. This analogy has been applied in employment relations in order to protect individual employees against arbitrary dismissal by employers. It has been held that an employee cannot be dismissed without a valid reason and in compliance with a fair procedure. The question asked here is whether this is sufficient to ensure substantive employment protection. Is judicial review really effective in employment relations? It is observed that judicial review in labour law has many limitations as compared to the administrative law context. First, it comes face to face with the problem of the public/private law distinction, which holds the employment relationship to be fundamentally a private relationship between the employer and employee. This complicates the application of public law remedies in supposedly private relations, where the parties are assumed to have freedom of contract. The second problem involves the debate as to whether the state should impose many restrictions on the modern corporation or there should be minimal state intervention to allow the corporation to function in accordance with the labour market demands and economic necessity. It is concluded that the law of unfair dismissal has consequently been put in a dilemma. While the need has been perceived to curb the arbitrary use of managerial power by employers, substantive employment protection can hardly be guaranteed. The problem seems to be that of striking the balance between the interests of employees, employers and society at large.
Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 1995.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2012
In Joseph v University of Limpopo & Others (JA14/09) [2011] ZALC 8 (13 May 2011) the Labour Appeal Court affirmed that there was unfairness in the process adopted by the employer in failing to renew the employee’s fixed term contract. This research paper examines the Labour Appeal Court’s reasoning in this case, with particular focus on the development of an implied term that each party to an employment contract owes the other a mutual duty of trust and confidence, and general reasonable behaviour. This paper further argues that mutual trust and confidence in the employment context protects the legitimate expectations of employees by serving as a bulwark against illegitimate conduct or acts of on the part of the employer designed or likely calculated to destroy the employer-employee relationship, thereby ensuring fuller protection of an employee’s constitutional rights. Joseph v University of Limpopo & others is of great significance. It indicates that the employer’s ability to rely successfully upon its prerogative not to renew fixed term contract where an employee has legitimate expectation of renewal may be contingent on its having acted in a manner consonant with mutual trust and confidence.

This research set out to ascertain whether the employers of domestic workers within the Msunduzi Area do comply with the requirements of Sectoral Determination 7: Domestic Worker Sector. For domestic workers who were exploited during the apartheid era, this determination was perceived as a mechanism that would liberate them (Department of Labour, 2005, p.7). Trade unions use collective bargaining as a tool to fight for employee rights. Domestic workers are unionised, but their trade unions are not as powerful as their counterparts in the private sector (Department of Labour, 2005, p.7). According to Huber (2001, p.20), one of the reasons domestic workers were excluded from most labour laws was the belief that it would be difficult to check whether or not each individual employer complied with the laws. This problem still exists and needs to be solved. Government laws were meant to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation (mainly farm and domestic workers), but what is actually happening is that, rather than protecting employees from exploitation, they serve as corrective action. They are only implemented when there is a case between an employee and the employer. The government has a responsibility to protect vulnerable employees such as domestic and farm workers. The mechanism instituted by the government to protect domestic workers was through the promulgation of Sectoral Determination 7: Domestic Service Sector, which lays down minimum working conditions for domestic workers (Department of Labour, 2005, p.9). The main aim was to alleviate exploitation of domestic workers by the employers due to the power imbalance between these two parties (Department of Labour, 2005, p.9). This study compares what the employer offers to an employee in terms of wages, working hours, meal intervals and leave. From the observation of the research, little research has been done on the compliance or non-compliance with Sectoral Determination 7: Domestic Service Sector, within the Msunduzi Region. The outcome of the findings from this research were that the minimum salary for those employees who work more than five days are R727,60 instead of R861,90 and for those domestic workers who work for five days a week it is an average of R528,93 instead of R567, 79. The results indicated that many of the standards set down by the government are clearly not being met by the employers of domestic workers, for example minimum wages are not being paid and maximum hours are being exceeded. The determination stipulated that the maximum hours that should be worked a week is 45 hours and a maximum of nine hours per day; this was not in line with the standards, seeing that the average amount of time worked per week by respondents was 46.9 hours and 9.3 hours per day. As far as meals are concerned Sectoral Determination 7: Domestic Worker Sector, indicated that the standard should be an hour meal interval for every five hours worked. Respondents from this study disagreed that they were given an hour-long lunch time and reflected that the average time taken for meals was only 30 minutes. Finally, domestic workers need to have annual leave of 21 consecutive days (Department of Labour, 2005, p.9). This standard was not being met, as the average number of days being given for annual leave is 16.5 days. Maternity leave should be given as four consecutive months for domestic workers. It was found that 89,3% of domestic workers were given maternity leave of less than the stipulated four consecutive months. Domestic workers should be given five days' leave for family responsibility (Department of Labour, 2005, p.9). The respondents indicated that this was not adhered to, as the average number of days being given to the domestic workers for family responsibility was 1.4 days. Only 13,8% of domestic workers were granted five days' family responsibility leave and approximately 67,6% received less than five days for family responsibility leave. The study recommended that there should be some kind of government policy of doing consistent spot checks in different areas in the Msunduzi Area and possibly the rest of the country. This will require the Department of Labour to increase its manpower. More labour inspectors will be needed to ensure that this whole area is sufficiently monitored. The study revealed that union officials need to devise means and ways of coming into contact with domestic workers. Employers were expected to have a copy of Sectoral Determination 7: Domestic Service Sector available, within easy access of domestic workers.
Thesis (M.B.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2006.

Thesis (M.Tech.: Office Management and Technology)-Durban University of Technology, 2005 xv, 129 leaves
The Constitution contains the Bill of Rights, one that is regarded as the corner-stone of democracy, as it enshrines the rights of all people and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom. Section 9(1) provides for the promotion of a society in which diversity of identity is respected and protected. The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, stipulates that designated employers implement affirmative action, thereby compelling organizations to eradicate all forms of discrimination in organizational processes and procedures. With such legal measures put in place (Promotion of the Equality Act) acceptance and change within organisations has to be accelerated. The purpose of this study is to explore workplace discrimination against trainees within the Hotel and Catering industries. Workplace discrimination is against human rights and can become a legal violation of Labour laws. Although preventative policies are in place, this study would illuminate the extent to which discrimination occurs, how it has manifested itself, and how students would be affected by this discrimination.

Cancer is regarded as a global disease and one of the leading killer diseases in the world. The reason why cancer is so widespread and often misunderstood stems from multiple factors, namely, the lack of knowledge about cancer, unfair discrimination of persons living with cancer, inadequate or inappropriate treatment provided to patients, the stigma attached to cancer, misdiagnosis and late diagnosis of persons living with cancer, as well as the inadequate provision of screening programs to detect cancer at an early stage. The combination of these issues raises alarming medico-legal problems that merit further attention. The thesis will explore the origin, nature, philosophical and clinical aspects pertaining to cancer, as well as legal issues related to cancer and oncology. The study will conclude with recommendations aimed at mitigating and addressing the shortcomings that exist in the medico-legal framework. The study will also draw on a legal comparison of relevant South African, English and American laws and regulations. Since this thesis entails focussing on medico-legal principles, the study will draw on aspects of medical law, labour law, law of contract, law of delict, constitutional law and criminal law.
Private Law
LL. D.